Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
before, and have bid have a conversation on how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way. -- i would have a conversation about how to reduce our deficits in a sensible way. we can talk about how we can make sure we finance our workers getting properly trained and are schools getting the education they deserve. there is a whole growth agenda that is important does well. -- as well. what you have not seen as the notion that has been presented so far by the republicans that deficit reduction will only cover spending cuts, that we will raise the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. there are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. we're not going to put ourselves in a position where, in order to pay for the spending we have already incurred, where the two options are we were way to either profoundly hurt the economy, hurt seniors, hurt kids trying to go to college or we will blow up the economy. we will not do that. not whatever congress does. they will have to send me something that is sens
to the president about past conflicts over the deficit reduction. mark and i were talking about how far back we go. it is a few years. and i remembered him of the earlier sessions that we had. gramm-rudman one and two and gran member holland. i've googled it for all of them. and i was thinking there have been two major changes. number one is the dataset that is clearly much greater. the deficit is much greater. when i think of the ways and means committee, would change their has been in the composition. the ranking member at a time when i started went to the world bank. i worked with bill on trade. he was handling the tax material mainly. and bill was working on health care at the time. i think a second major change is very much effective today and affects us today. it is this change in composition of the republican party. i think it has moved very much more to the right. i think that makes it very difficult to handle the problems that we have before us. let me comment briefly on where we are. you offer the president yesterday. we have had spending cuts of a trillion and a half dollars. it comes f
reduced the federal deficit even by a dollar. we are not going to get out of this overnight. this would allow us to keep reducing the deficits. we have a shared value in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. we are intent on that. host: how much of the budget does waste, fraud, and abuse make up? guest: i could go back to virginia beach, virginia, and we could identify waste every day. we will never eliminate it entirely. we can do a better job. it will take reforms. we are living longer and we have fewer people paying in. i want to protect those who are hurting the most, like art, who called in earlier. host: lester is a republican. caller: good morning. disability, 63 years old. my wife still works. $45,000 a less taw less than year. somehow someone is going to have to do something about this. guest: i agree completely. i believe it is immoral for one generation to pass on debt that dims their future. those who have served our country -- i am mindful of the price paid by our goldstar families. we're failing the young people. i am with you. i was over it. i believe when americans are gi
house caprettto prioritize the government's bills. guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake a deficit-reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a dead beat nation, really. i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know firsthand, second-hand, but much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, some of them realize the potential consequences. host: if president obama won on the fiscal cliff d
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
, but $120 billion a year. our deficit is 1.2. all they're talking about 10% of the problem. the people don't understand. they think the 1.2 is equal to the deficit. it's only 10% of the deficit. my solution is to raise taxes by $300 billion and cut spending by $900. -- by $900 billion. i find the american public is not very smart. host: you know, that is -- the educational question is a fundamental question. here's what happens. let's talk in practical terms and not a theoretical terms. when paul ryan came out with his budget, he had some substantial changes in medicare and medicaid. over time they would've been phased in. no one over the age of 55 would've been affected by them, giving you time to really prepare for your retirement. the changes were relatively minor in the short run, but compounded over the next 20 years would've made a real difference in our indebtedness. that is not the kind of debate we had last year either at the presidential or senatorial congressional level. it was this. people want to change medicare want to push ganny. off a people who want to change medicaid are
to prioritize the government's bills. what's wrong with that idea? guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake deficit reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills do you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a deadbeat nation really, and i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know, if i might say so, if not firsthand, secondhand, much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, not all of it, i think some realizes the potential consequences. host: if
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9